identifying, monitoring, and benchmarking teacher

Identifying, Monitoring, and Benchmarking Teacher Retention and Turnover: Guidelines for TIF Grantees

Matthew Finster

Westat

January 2015

This product was developed under a contract from the U.S. Department of Education for Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF) Technical Assistance, ED-ESE-15-A-0016/0001. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the positions or policies of the U.S. Department of Education. No official endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education of any product, commodity, service, or enterprise mentioned in this publication is intended or should be inferred. This product is public domain. Authorization to reproduce it in whole or in part is granted. For more information about the Teacher Incentive Fund’s work and its partners, see www.tlpcommunity.org.

http://www.tlpcommunity.org/

Identifying, Monitoring, and Benchmarking Teacher Retention and Turnover: Guidelines for TIF Grantees 2

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank Anthony Milanowski for reviewing multiple drafts and providing decidedly

insightful comments and valuable feedback throughout the process. The author would also like to thank

Jackson Miller for his time in reviewing drafts of this resource.


Table of Contents

Section Page

Acknowledgments........................................................................................................................ 2

Brief Series: Developing a Strategic Accountability Approach to Managing Teacher Talent Retention and Turnover ....................................................................................................... 4

Brief 1—Identifying, Monitoring, and Benchmarking Teacher Retention and Turnover:

Guidelines for TIF Grantees .................................................................................................. 4

Introduction and Overview: Why a Strategic Teacher Retention Approach Is Needed .............. 4

Teacher Retention Issues: Performance Levels (Teacher and School Level), Equity Concerns, and Supply Issues ................................................................................................. 5

What Actions Do Grantees Need to Take to Actively Track Teacher Retention, Mobility,

and Turnover? ....................................................................................................................... 7

1) Differentiating between various types of teacher turnover .......................................... 8

2) Identifying and prioritizing what to track ....................................................................... 10

3) Setting teacher retention targets with benchmarks ...................................................... 11

Using Research and Data to Help Set Retention Targets ......................................... 13

Contextual and Workforce Considerations .............................................................. 15

Fiscal Cost Considerations ........................................................................................ 16

4) Tracking Teacher Turnover By Identified Key Organizational and Individual Characteristics ................................................................................................................ 16

Methods and Tools for Tracking Teacher Turnover ............................................ 16

Figures

1 Strategic approach to managing teacher retention, mobility, and turnover .................. 4

2 Functional and dysfunctional teacher retention ............................................................. 6

3 Typologies of teacher turnover* ..................................................................................... 8

4 Elements to consider for setting teacher retention targets ............................................ 10

5 School district teacher retention target bands ................................................................ 12

6 Methods for tracking and diagnosing teacher retention, mobility, and turnover: scope vs. explanatory power .................................................................................... 17

Next Steps: Diagnosing Causes of Teacher Retention, Mobility, and Turnover .......................... 19

Appendix A: Elements to Consider for Tracking Teacher Retention ........................................... 20

References ................................................................................................................................... 22

End Notes ..................................................................................................................................... 24


Brief 1—Identifying, Monitoring, and Benchmarking Teacher Retention and Turnover: Guidelines for TIF Grantees

Introduction and Overview: Why a Strategic Teacher Retention Approach Is Needed

Having a well-qualified, effective teacher in every classroom is a cornerstone of current educational reforms.

Clearly, retaining these teachers, and removing ineffective teachers, in schools is critical to achieving this

goal. The turnover of effective teachers and retention of ineffective teachers both can have a negative effect

on student achievement, and teacher turnover in itself can have a disruptive effect on school performance

(Ronfeldt, Loeb, & Wyckoff, 2013; The New Teacher Project (TNTP), 2012). To promote the retention of

effective teachers and the deselection of ineffective teachers, school district leaders and human resource

personnel need information on what types of teachers are staying and leaving particular schools or the

school district, and the reasons those teachers may be staying or leaving, to enable the design of policies to

mitigate harmful teacher turnover and enhance retention. However, rarely do school districts and schools

have a strategic approach to managing teacher retention and turnover. A strategic approach entails

systematically monitoring, diagnosing, and mitigating harmful teacher turnover and enhancing retention

(see Figure 1).

Figure 1. Strategic approach to managing teacher retention, mobility, and turnover

Monitoring

Diagnosing Applying Solutions

Brief Series: Developing a Strategic Accountability Approach to

Managing Teacher Talent Retention and Turnover


This brief series provides guidelines and

frameworks intended for grantees, school district

leaders, human resource personnel, and

policymakers to develop a strategic accountability

approach to managing teacher talent retention and

turnover. This first brief describes the purposes,

methods, and tools for monitoring (or tracking)

teacher retention and turnover to partially address

supply, equity, and performance issues. The second

brief will more thoroughly discuss frameworks and

methods for diagnosing causes of teacher

retention, mobility, and turnover. The third brief

will present the accompanying solution sets to

address the causes of undesirable teacher turnover

and the various strategies to implement them.

This brief addresses the following areas:

Key purposes for tracking teacher retention, mobility, and turnover

Processes for establishing teacher retention targets

Methods to track teacher retention, mobility, and turnover

There are several rationales for monitoring teacher

retention and mobility: (1) to identify supply gaps

in the teacher workforce, (2) to examine the

potential contribution of differences in retention

rates to inequitable distributions of effective

teachers across schools, and (3) to track the effects

of the human capital management system in

retaining effective teachers and removing those

who are ineffective. Grantees’ need to know

whether teacher retention levels are sufficient for

specific types of teachers, whether specific schools

within a school district are retaining teachers at

different levels, and, at the end of the day,

whether the school district is retaining effective

teachers. To begin to address these critical

questions regarding a school district’s teacher

workforce, grantees need to monitor teacher

turnover and retention.

Teacher Retention Issues: Performance Levels (Teacher and School Level), Equity Concerns, and Supply Issues

There is bountiful research on the importance of

teachers to student performance that generally

concurs that teachers are the most important

school-level factor that influences student

achievement (Hanushek & Rivkin, 2010; Rivkin,

Hanushek, & Kain, 2005; Rockoff, 2004). This

research has fueled the national policy agenda to

put an effective teacher in every classroom. To

meet this requirement, school systems need

access to a sufficient supply of effective teachers

and have the ability (or capacity) to retain them.

There are numerous problems stemming from

schools not retaining teachers, whether effective

or ineffective. First, simply recruiting, selecting,

and training teachers who subsequently leave can

have substantial costs (Milanowski & Odden,

2007). Second, turnover of effective teachers may

lower overall teacher productivity if schools or

districts do not replace teachers who leave with

others equally effective. This is likely to happen

when a district and/or school replaces an

experienced effective teacher with a new

inexperienced teacher; some research suggests

that, on average, beginning teachers are less

productive than those with three to five or more

years of experience (Rivkin et al., 2005). Third, a

disproportionate amount of teacher turnover in

schools serving disadvantaged students can result

in disparities in instructional quality, especially if

schools replace experienced teachers with

beginners. Fourth, if schools and/or school districts

are not retaining teachers with certain

characteristics, such as science, technology,

engineering, and mathematics (STEM) or beginning

teachers, staffing shortages or demographic

imbalances may develop in critical areas.


As well as creating problems for an organization,

high rates of employee turnover may signal

underlying problems within the organization, such

as strife within the organization or lack of

administrative leadership (Mobley, 1982; Price,

1977, 1989). From this perspective, employee

turnover can be both a cause and effect of

problems in a school or school district. To begin to

address these underlying problems and

consequences of teacher turnover, grantees need

to track and monitor teacher retention, mobility,

and turnover.

While teacher turnover long has been recognized

as a potential problem, it is important to recognize

that not all turnover is bad. Recent evidence

indicates that retaining an ineffective teacher can

also stunt student achievement (TNTP, 2012). This

evidence indicates the long-term cost of retaining

an ineffective teacher may be far greater than the

short-term cost of replacement. Further, turnover

in the workforce opens opportunities for teachers

with new ideas and can allow for diversifying the

teaching workforce. Additionally, some turnover is

not organizationally amendable; that is, teachers

leave for reasons unrelated to the conditions of

the organization. Taken together, these

considerations suggest that very low rates of

turnover may not be desirable or practical.

What is desirable is healthy, functional teacher

retention, which is a combination of

simultaneously retaining effective teachers and

deselecting ineffective ones. And, conversely,

unhealthy, dysfunctional teacher retention

consists of effective teachers leaving and

ineffective teachers staying in a particular school

or school district (or organization). Figure 2 depicts

this simplified concept of functional and

dysfunctional teacher retention.

Figure 2. Functional and dysfunctional teacher retention

It is also desirable to have little variation in teacher

turnover across schools. In addition to tracking

teacher retention, mobility, and turnover by

performance levels, it is also critical to examine

variation in teacher retention rates between

schools within a school district. The equitable

distribution of teacher effectiveness is a primary

educational policy aim. However, research

continuously provides evidence that indicates

teachers are unevenly distributed across districts

Retention of effective

teachers

Turnover of

ineffective teachers

Healthy, functional retention

Retention of

ineffective teachers

Turnover of effective

teachers

Unhealthy, dysfunctional

retention


and schools, with less effective teachers being

disproportionately located in schools with

relatively higher rates of minority students or

students living in poverty (e.g., Borman & Dowling,

2008; Clotfelter, Ladd, & Vigdor, 2005, 2006;

Lankford, Loeb, & Wyckoff, 2002). And, there is

evidence that in some cases, even within schools,

new teachers are sorted to lower achieving and

more disadvantaged students (e.g., Feng, 2010).

Where variation exists, it follows that either these

schools or districts had an initial disproportionate

supply of high-quality teachers, or they have

different retention rates of these types of

teachers. Thus, an important question addressing

equity concerns is: Do teacher retention rates vary

between schools? And, if so, are these variations

associated with school-level factors, such as school

poverty and minority levels?

In order to have a sufficient supply of teachers to

meet staffing needs, schools and school districts

need to retain teachers with specific

characteristics. This is particularly important for

shortage areas. If the supply of teachers in an area

(e.g., STEM, special education) is limited, districts

can ill afford significant turnover of these teachers.

Another critical question is: Are schools or school

districts retaining specific types of teachers, for

example, beginning, STEM, or minority teachers?

Summarizing the discussion above, grantees

should consider tracking teacher retention,

mobility, and/or turnover in at least four ways:

Overall district level

By level of teacher effectiveness

By school, with special attention to differences between schools serving different proportions of disadvantaged students

By important subgroups of teachers, including underrepresented demographic groups and teachers in shortage subject areas

To address functionality, equity, and supply

questions and make informed decisions about

teacher retention policies, local school district

leaders and policymakers need to strategically

monitor teacher retention, mobility, and turnover.

This approach encompasses identifying potential

teacher supply gaps, examining equity of retention

levels between schools, and accounting for teacher

performance levels. This action requires that

district personnel collect district-specific teacher

retention data and, in doing so, identify various

types of teacher turnover to target select groups

for retention and set teacher retention targets as

trigger points for interventions.

What Actions Do Grantees Need to Take to Actively Track Teacher Retention, Mobility, and Turnover?

To make informed decisions about teacher talent

retention policies and issues, local policymakers and

leaders need district-specific data on teacher

retention and mobility. National, state-, and school-

district-level research can provide a useful backdrop

for gauging teacher turnover and provide an initial

understanding of likely dynamics within a school

district. However, only data and research on a

particular school district, and its schools, can capture

actual teacher retention, mobility, and turnover

levels within that specific context and provide

information on why teachers may be staying in or

leaving particular schools or the school district.

To appropriately monitor and benchmark teacher

retention, mobility, and turnover, districts need to

take several key steps:

Differentiate between various types of teacher turnover

Identify and prioritize what to track

Set teacher retention goals and targets

Track teacher retention and turnover by identified key organizational and individual characteristics


1) Differentiating between various types of teacher turnover

To effectively manage teacher turnover, personnel

need to make distinctions between the various types

of teacher turnover because they have different

causes and consequences. Figure 3 below depicts one

common framework (Hom & Griffeth, 1995).

The first distinction shown is between voluntary

and involuntary turnover. Voluntary turnover

includes resignations or retirements initiated by

the teacher. Involuntary turnover is initiated by

the employer and includes layoffs or reductions in

force plus terminations initiated by the district.

Within each of these categories, there is also

functional and dysfunctional turnover. Functional

turnover is turnover of less effective teachers, and

dysfunctional turnover represents the turnover of

effective teachers.i Within the voluntary

dysfunctional category, unavoidable turnover is

due to causes largely outside the employer’s

control, such as a spousal transfer or illness, while

avoidable turnover is due to causes the employer

can influence or mitigate, such as poor working

conditions or low pay.

While it can be hard to classify some individual

instances of turnover as functional or dysfunctional,

TIF grantees are in a better position than most

districts because they have developed multiple-

measure teacher evaluation systems that better

differentiate teacher performance. For TIF districts,

the first step toward capturing dysfunctional and

functional teacher turnover is linking educator

performance indicators (e.g., evaluations based on

teacher observations and student growth measures)

to the turnover data. (This issue will be discussed

further in the tracking teacher turnover section

below.) Studies typically rely on various measures of

teacher quality, including experience, education

levels, and value-added scores (e.g., see Goldhaber,

Gross, & Player, 2007). In addition to these

indicators, teacher evaluation ratings based on

multiple valid performance measures are likely to

yield useful information for assessing functional and

dysfunctional teacher turnover.

Figure 3. Typologies of teacher turnover*

*modified from Hom and Griffeth’s (1995) figure.

Teacher Turnover

Voluntary

Functional

(Turnover of ineffective teachers)

Dysfunctional

(Turnover of effective teachers)

Unavoidable Avoidable

Involuntary

Functional

(Turnover of ineffective teachers)

Dysfunctional

(Turnover of effective teachers)


This figure also breaks involuntary turnover into

dysfunctional and functional to acknowledge that

involuntary teacher layoffs brought on by reduction-

in-force policies may not always be functional (e.g.,

Goldhaber & Theobald, 2013). In response to these

claims, many states have abolished their state

statutes requiring seniority be a primary factor in

layoff decisions, and many school districts use

performance as a criterion in their layoff decisions

(TNTP, 2011). However, this is not yet universal

practice, and grantees should pay attention to the

impacts of involuntary turnover by tracking the

performance levels of teachers let go.

Voluntary turnover can also be categorized as

avoidable and unavoidable turnover. The figure

focuses on voluntary, dysfunctional turnover since

whether functional turnover is unavoidable or

avoidable is not a primary concern. Historically,

unavoidable turnover represented employee

separations that the organization could not

influence, such as childbirth, family relocations, and

medical leaves, while avoidable turnover was

considered to be more within the organization’s

control (Abelson, 1987). Over time, this distinction

has become less clear, with companies influencing

so-called “unavoidable” exits with an array of

strategies aimed at easing work-family conflicts,

such as job-sharing and flextime. In light of the fact

that a large percentage of teachers who leave

teaching report family and personal reasons as

being very or extremely important in their decision

(Finster, 2013; Ingersoll, 2001), grantees’ efforts to

accommodate teachers’ individual situations may

help to reduce some “unavoidable” teacher

turnover.

At the aggregate level, there is evidence that

indicates a substantial percentage of teacher

turnover is due to avoidable reasons (e.g., Hirsch,

Emerick, Church, & Fuller, 2007; Ingersoll & May,

2011; Marvel et al., 2007). Generally, these reasons

stem from working conditions and factors that the

grantees can influence or mitigate, including

mentoring programs, class size, teacher autonomy,

administrative support, collegiality, and

compensation. While the ease with which grantees

can change these factors varies, compared to

unavoidable factors, these conditions are much

more likely to fall under the purview of the

organization.

Another useful distinction is whether teachers who

leave their schools move within the district, move

out of the district, or exit the teaching profession

altogether. These different categories are often

referred to as movers within, movers out, and

leavers (or exiters). From the district’s perspective,

it is important to distinguish between those who

may be changing schools (or moving to another

position such as assistant principal) and those who

are leaving the district. Teacher movement within a

school district may not necessarily have an overall

negative impact on school district performance;

however, grantees will need to monitor it due to

equity concerns at the school level. Teachers

moving out of the school district results in the same

human capital loss for the school district as a

teacher exiting the entire teaching profession, but

this type of movement may be associated with

varying levels of job satisfaction and organizational

commitment. While many districts will not be able

to track whether a teacher left the district for

another or left the profession, it would be useful to

know this because some teachers exiting the

teaching profession may be leaving for unavoidable

reasons, while some moving to other districts may

be influenced by factors the district could mitigate,

such as working conditions. Thus, to target specific

groups of teachers for retention strategies, it is

important to account for the type of movement

patterns and to differentiate between the different

turnover typologies.

Making these distinctions while setting retention

targets and tracking teacher turnover will assist


grantee and human resource personnel with

subsequently identifying the extent of unwanted

teacher turnover that they may be able to mitigate.

2) Identifying and prioritizing what to track

As a first step in deciding what to track, personnel

need to identify key priorities. For this process,

they should consider tracking teacher turnover

from a supply, equity, or performance perspective.

From a supply perspective, is the teacher

workforce sufficient to meet the school district’s

staffing needs? Are there teacher shortages in any

critical areas, such as special education or STEM

assignments? If so, personnel will need to track

these areas. Regarding equity, do schools across

the school district have similar retention rates, or

is there wide variation? If a school district is

committed to equity, it should not be willing to

accept large variation in teacher turnover across

schools with different proportions of

disadvantaged students. And, regarding individual

performance, are teachers who are leaving the

school district effective or ineffective teachers?

Overall performance hinges on retaining talented

teachers. Each perspective offers important

insights into the teacher workforce.

This decision-making process should be guided by

insights into or concerns about the current local

teacher workforce. For example, leaders or

policymakers may have concerns about retaining

beginning teachers. High turnover of beginning

teachers can negatively affect the quality of

instruction that students receive (Lankford et al.,

2002). Or, school district officials may have concerns

about serving their racially and ethnically diverse

student population. As school districts and schools

begin to serve a more and more racially and

ethnically diverse student population, the racial and

ethnic makeup of the teaching workforce becomes

more critical. (For a review of arguments for

diversifying the teaching workforce, see Villegas and

Irvine (2010).) To cultivate a more racially and

ethnically diverse educator workforce, district

policymakers and leaders need to know how their

school district and schools are retaining teachers of

color and other ethnic minority teachers.

Broadly, grantees can track teacher turnover at the

district or school level by organizational and/or

individual characteristics. Figure 4 depicts the

elements that grantees can combine when

considering setting teacher retention targets. (For

a list of recommendations of what can be tracked,

see appendix A.)

Figure 4. Elements to consider for setting teacher retention targets

District Level

District characteristics

Teacher characteristics

School Level

School characteristics

Teacher characteristics

Tim

e In

terv

als


For example, beginning or minority teachers could

be tracked at the district level. Or, at the school

level, grantees can monitor teacher turnover by

school poverty or racial/ethnicity rates. These

metrics could be based on one- or five-year

intervals. For example, a common turnover metric

is beginning teacher retention over the course of

five years. These levels and characteristics capture

the context in which grantees can examine teacher

turnover and demonstrate how grantees can

combine the elements in many different ways.

Once grantees establish turnover classification

typologies and identify critical areas, district

personnel can proceed with the task of identifying

target levels.

3) Setting teacher retention targets with benchmarks

The purpose of establishing targets is to set

common goals for teacher retention levels and, in

doing so, develop human resource teacher

retention and turnover control processes. In

addition to providing aims to strive for, grantees

and human resource personnel should use these

targets as tools to potentially trigger further

analysis and initiate teacher retention strategies.

Depending on the critical areas identified,

retention targets will need to be set at the district

or school level. One way of proceeding with this

task is to establish teacher retention levels at the

district level associated with unacceptable,

acceptable, and desired rates (Phillips & Connell,

2003). The exact labels do not matter as much as

what they represent, that is, levels of teacher

retention that the school district finds intolerable,

adequate, and desirable. A practical way to

approach these levels would be to establish

ranges. For example, personnel could establish an

annual teacher retention rate below 60 percent as

unacceptable, which would trigger significant

analysis and action. Furthermore, a grantee could

set a teacher retention rate between 60 and 80

percent as acceptable, but stipulate that this rate

may warrant attention and potentially initiatives to

improve teacher retention. The next range, 80 to

90 percent, could be set as desirable; to reach this

level would require considerable focus and effort

on retaining teachers. Note the desired range does

not include 100 percent retention; this limit allows

for some level of unavoidable and functional,

involuntary turnover and indicates that some small

percentage of turnover is likely productive for the

organization. In this manner, the ranges act as a

human resource control process, triggering

retention efforts as needed, with the goal of

staying in particular ranges.

In the private sector, to set these retention target

rates, companies use a combination of their

industry’s average employee retention rate and

the employee retention rate of high-performing

firms within the industry. Similarly, to establish

teacher retention targets and ranges, teacher

district leaders need to know their district’s

current teacher turnover rate and compare it

against national, state, and, better yet, comparable

school districts’ teacher retention rates. There are

not “industry” standards for teacher retention in

education, but based on their district’s own data

and teacher retention rates across different

settings, grantees and school district leaders may

be able to determine appropriate teacher

retention targets. (Resources for establishing these

retention levels are discussed further below.)

This process can be repeated at the school level.

For instance, grantees and personnel could

establish ranges at the school level and determine

whether schools’ teacher retention levels fall in

the unacceptable, acceptable, or desirable ranges.

In this case, a uniform range would be established

and applied across schools, and schools that have

an unacceptable retention rate could be targeted

for further analysis.


Another approach to setting targets for school-

level teacher turnover variation would be to

establish band levels of unacceptable, acceptable,

and desirable variation based on the mean

turnover.ii This approach would focus more

directly on the variation across schools than the

previous method. Figure 5 illustrates this concept.

In this example, the bands are centered on the

average turnover percentage rate and expand out

in 10 percent intervals.iii The desirable teacher

retention bandwidth is within 10 percentage

points (i.e., area captured between black and

orange), that is, all schools should have teacher

retention rates within 10 percent of each other.

The acceptable teacher retention bandwidth is

within 20 percent (i.e., area captured between

black and green), and the unacceptable teacher

retention bandwidth is within 30 percent (i.e., area

captured between black and red). Another way to

center the bands would be on the top retention

rate. This process would set a standard for teacher

retention based on the schools with the highest

retention rates.

Another way to center the bands would be to use

the mean and standard deviation. To establish

appropriate bandwidths for a particular medium or

large school district, it would be useful to examine

the standard deviation of the current school

retention rates to determine how lenient a plus or

minus 10 percent band may be. For example, the

mean across schools would be set as the

acceptable level, and the unacceptable and

desirable levels could be set at plus or minus one

standard deviation from this average. The

standard deviation shows the amount of variation

from the mean. A low standard deviation indicates

the data points are close to the mean, whereas a

high standard deviation indicates that the data

points are spread out over a larger range. If the

teacher retention rates are already close to the

mean, then tighter ranges may be appropriate. An

advantage of this method is that it may be more

realistic to expect schools with lower retention to

try to move up to the average level than to a level

based on a more ideal situation.

Figure 5. School district teacher retention target bands

Whatever method grantee or district personnel

use, they should establish a standard acceptable

retention level or range across all schools within a

school district to allow for comparisons and trigger

further analysis. Setting norms or ranges forces a

school district to clarify what across-school level of

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

School A School B School C School D

Teacher Retention


variation in teacher retention rates it finds

intolerable, satisfactory, and desirable.

Essentially, these bands represent measures of

equity. Over time, a school district should not be

willing to accept extreme variation in teacher

retention across schools, in other words wide

retention bands, if it is committed to equity.

Establishing these teacher retention bands across

schools within a school district essentially defines

the level of inequity in teacher retention rates that

a school district is willing to tolerate. For schools

with relatively lower levels of teacher retention,

personnel can use these bands to pinpoint

inequities and initiate further analysis.iv If

personnel detect extreme differences in teacher

retention rates, further examination may reveal

the differences are associated with certain student

characteristics (i.e., poverty and minority levels) or

organizational problems (or both). However,

maybe the between-school variation is due to

differences in the age and experience of the

teacher workforce and not due to organizational

problems within those schools. Identification of

the variation in teacher retention levels is the first

step for further analysis.

Using Research and Data to Help Set Retention Targets

Once grantee and district personnel have

identified the key priorities, they can use a variety

of different resources and data to inform the

retention target-setting process and eventually

these data to benchmark actual turnover rates.

Research using national, state-, or school-district

data can provide information on aggregate teacher

retention patterns, which may be useful for setting

retention targets. These sources offer insight into

the overall stability of the teacher workforce at

large and in different specific contexts by both

organizational and individual characteristics and by

varying time intervals. A key to using national,

state-, or district-level information is to match

main organizational and/or individual teacher

characteristics as closely as possible. However, the

best baseline data are developed using local

teacher retention, mobility, and attrition data.

For example, if school district personnel are

interested in setting a retention target for

beginning teachers at the district level, a good

place to start is with local data, which they can

then compare with national or state data. For

example, say it is known that a district retains

beginning teachers (i.e., teachers with no prior

experience) at a 50 percent rate from one year to

the next. This retention rate can be compared with

the national average beginning teacher retention

rate using the Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS)

and Teacher Follow-up Survey (TFS), which are

nationally representative data sources for teacher

retention, mobility, and turnover. Even more

specific to beginning teachers is the National

Center for Education Statistics (NCES) Beginning

Teacher Longitudinal Study (BTLS).v According to a

report on the results of the first through third

waves of the BTLS, of the beginning public school

teachers (i.e., teachers with one to three years of

experience) who started in 2007–08, about 9

percent moved to teach in another district, and 10

percent were not teaching in the following year,

2008–09 (Kaiser, 2011). So, while the national

school district average retention rate for beginning

teachers from 2007–08 to 2008–09 is roughly 81

percent, the particular school district under

discussion has a retention rate of 50 percent. To

provide better comparisons, the aggregate

retention level of beginning teachers could be

further broken down (and compared) by

demographics, such as urban or rural locales.

These data sources provide a yardstick to gauge

teacher turnover; however, these data sources

provide aggregate statistics on what is occurring

nationally with the teacher workforce.


Comparing the beginning teacher retention rate

with other comparable school districts in the same

state may yield further insight. Is the 50 percent

beginning teacher retention rate higher or lower

than other school districts’ averages? Many states

keep extensive records of their teachers’

movement in and out of the profession; some of

the most notable include New York, Texas,

Massachusetts, and Michigan. Research examining

teacher retention and mobility within a particular

state may also be informative (e.g., Elfers & Plecki,

2006; Plecki, Elfers, & Knapp, 2006; Plecki, Elfers,

Loeb, Zahir, & Knapp, 2005). Using a combination

of data sources, district personnel may establish

realistic baseline targets for their beginning

teachers.

As for variation across schools in a school district,

there are not set standards for between-school

teacher retention levels. School district personnel

will need to establish those guidelines depending

on the context of the school district. As previously

discussed, examining the standard deviations for

the teacher retention rates would provide insight

into the levels of current variation across the

district. District personnel could use this

information to establish realistic target ranges for

a majority of schools. For example, smaller,

uniform districts with relatively smaller standard

deviations for school-level teacher retention may

set tighter limits on the amount of variation that

they are willing to accept. Conversely, larger and

more diverse school districts that may have larger

standard deviations of school-level teacher

retention rates may set wider limits on between-

school variation.

There are no generally accepted rules for deciding

what the optimal level of teacher retention is, and

it is not certain at what point teacher turnover

becomes disruptive toward organizational

performance. While it is clear that not retaining

low-performing teachers is desirable, district

leaders and personnel must also consider the

disruptive effects on school performance of any

turnover (Ronfeldt et al., 2013). Individual teacher

performance aside, turnover can disrupt school

attempts to improve performance by diverting

attention and resources to train new hires and re-

establish professional communities. Some

employee turnover theory contends the

relationship between organizational performance

and employee turnover is curvilinear, that is,

organizational performance is hindered with low

and high levels of employee turnover (e.g.,

Abelson & Baysinger, 1984; Glebbeek & Bax,

2004). In support of this theory, Meier and Hicklin

(2008) studied school districts and found that very

low levels of teacher turnover were detrimental to

school performance. Because very low levels of

teacher turnover may have a negative impact on

school performance, a target of 0 percent

turnover, or 100 percent retention, is probably not

desirable, as well as being unrealistic. A practical

way to gauge the level at which teacher turnover

may become disruptive to a school is to ask the

principal the point at which teacher turnover may

be hindering overall school performance, or how

much “new blood” is desirable.

Setting retention target ranges based on teachers’

performance levels also requires careful thought.

When considering this issue, it is important to

account for the current quality of the teacher

workforce and consider the quality of the teacher

applicant pool. Retention targets need to be based

on a district’s current distribution of teachers on

measures of teacher effectiveness. While the goal

is to retain high and average performers, and

remove low-performing teachers, these

performance levels may not be easily distinguished

if grantee or district personnel have not carefully

developed teacher performance measures. Poorly

designed and implemented evaluation systems can

fail to differentiate performance, resulting in 99


percent of the teachers ranking as developing,

effective, or highly effective. Here the problem is

potentially under identification of low-performing

teachers. However, depending solely on student

growth measures, such as value-added, can also be

problematic. Many value-added models produce

norm-referenced measures, showing a teachers’

deviation from the average student growth in the

district.vi If the average quality of the district’s

teacher workforce is relatively high, even teachers

with lower value-added scores might be

performing relatively well, compared to other

districts. In this case, the value-added measure

could overestimate the percentage of the teacher

workforce that is low performing.

Another important consideration is the expected

quality of the applicants available to replace the

teachers who leave. At an aggregate level, some

evidence demonstrates that if the bottom-most 5

percent of teachers were removed, students on

average would make substantial gains in

performance based on value-added models

(Hanushek, 2009).vii However, this scenario

requires that, on average, the new incoming

teachers would be of higher caliber. If the

applicant pool available to the district does not

contain a sufficient number of potentially high-

performing teachers, then setting a retention

target that assumes that a substantial number of

low-performing teachers will be deselected may

not help improve overall quality.

If a school district has state value-added data, it

could compare its bottom 5 percent to the state’s

in terms of value-added scores. If the district’s

bottom 5 percent is lower than the statewide

bottom 5 percent, it could set a target to remove

some percentage of the bottom 5 percent until it

came up to the state level. Another more

qualitative approach could be to monitor the

“dance of the lemons,” that is, the extent to which

marginally effective teachers transfer or are

reassigned from school to school within a school

district. Evaluating the quality of teachers (using a

combination of methods and measures) involved

in intra-district movement and assessing the

extent to which marginal performers are being

reassigned may yield some district-level teacher

removal target levels.

Contextual and Workforce Considerations

In setting the teacher retention targets it is

important to consider if, and how, factors may

influence the relative size of teacher turnover.

Time intervals and other factors, such as district or

school size, may significantly affect the relative size

of teacher retention rates. Beside annual turnover

rates, other common time intervals include two-

and five-year periods. For instance, what is the

retention rate for beginning teachers after a five-

year period? With roughly 40 to 50 percent of

beginning teachers leaving the teaching profession

after five years of teaching, it has been argued that

the retention rate of beginning teachers is a

prominent concern for addressing teacher

shortages (Ingersoll & Smith, 2003). Tracking only

annual teacher turnover will not provide

information on whether a district is retaining

specific groups of teachers over time. To assess

whether a district is retaining beginning teachers,

it would be informative to use a five-year period.

Retention rates based on five-year intervals are

likely to be lower than annual rates.

The size of the school district is another factor that

may significantly influence the relative size of

teacher retention rates. Relatively smaller districts

or schools may experience wide fluctuations in

teacher retention rates due to a relatively small

number of teachers. It is important to consider

these contextual factors and establish rules and

guidelines around acceptable variation by such

factors.viii


When setting retention targets, it is essential to

place and understand them within the context of

the overall distribution of the teacher workforce

characteristics. For example, understanding the

overall experience or age distribution of a district’s

teacher workforce is an important backdrop for

setting teacher retention targets. For a district

with a relatively large proportion of beginning

teachers, setting a higher bar for beginning

teacher retention may be even more critical. And,

conversely, for a district with relatively low

proportions of beginning teachers, a 50 percent

retention rate may not signal a problem at all, if

say, that means two out of four teachers were

retained over a five-year period. In addition to

keeping the local contextual factors and teacher

workforce characteristics in mind when reflecting

on the retention and turnover rates, it is necessary

to use these factors and characteristics to find

comparable research and data sources that can

inform the target-setting process.

Fiscal Cost Considerations

To determine acceptable levels of teacher

turnover, grantees should also consider the fiscal

costs of separation, replacement, and training

directly attributable to teacher turnover. While the

loss of human capital and subsequent loss in

productivity in student learning is the greatest

concern stemming from teacher turnover, the out-

of-pocket expenditures resulting from recruitment,

selection, and training processes are not negligible.

(For a detailed discussion of separation,

replacement, and training costs, see Milanowski

and Odden (2007).) Grantees and human resource

personnel should first determine their separation,

replacement, and training costs, and then they

should establish an acceptable level of teacher

turnover partially based on the fiscal expenditures

that they are willing to incur from teacher

turnover.

Once teacher retention targets are established and

set using a variety of data sources, personnel can

begin to use various methods to track teacher

retention, mobility, and attrition. The next section

discusses methods for tracking teacher turnover.

4) Tracking Teacher Turnover By Identified Key Organizational and Individual Characteristics

Tracking teacher turnover provides information

about changes in the teacher workforce, allowing

for identification of potential staffing problem

areas, and serves two primary purposes: (1)

identifying the absolute levels of teacher turnover

within a school district and across its schools by

key organizational and individual characteristics

and (2) determining the causes of turnover. During

this tracking process, it is advantageous to use the

turnover classification schemes to make

distinctions between different types of teacher

turnover to subsequently identify the extent of

unwanted turnover that may be mitigated from an

organizational perspective.

Methods and Tools for Tracking Teacher Turnover

A variety of methods and tools exist for tracking,

and eventually diagnosing, teacher retention,

mobility and turnover.ix The methods and tools for

tracking and diagnosing are similar; however,

some methods offer more comprehensive

information on teachers’ mobility patterns, while

others provide more insight into teachers’

turnover decision-making process. Figure 6 depicts

the typical methods used to examine retention

and turnover and their placement on a continuum

of tradeoffs between scope and explanatory

power.


Figure 6. Methods for tracking and diagnosing teacher retention, mobility, and turnover: scope vs. explanatory power

Tracking (Scope) Diagnosing (Explanatory)

-Databases -Surveys -Focus Groups -In-depth Interviews

To track teacher turnover, district personnel need

to use methods that capture the scope of all

teachers’ mobility patterns within the school

district. This is likely best achieved by linking

teacher mobility information to teacher personnel

data. This information can capture all teacher

movement between schools and out of the school

district by individual teacher characteristics and

may readily link to organizational characteristics. If

a reduction in force occurred in the school district,

personnel could link this information to the

turnover data to denote involuntary turnover.

Grantees and human resource personnel should

try to capture types of termination (e.g., layoff,

retirement) and known destinations (promotion,

movement to another school, movement to

another district), even if imperfectly, in their

human resource data system. If possible, districts

should also merge this information with teacher

evaluation data. This process would provide an

initial source of information for assessing

functional and dysfunctional turnover. While

databases may provide comprehensive

information on teachers’ mobility patterns and

associate teacher movement patterns with

organizational and individual characteristics, they

offer little insight into the actual reasons teachers

stay in a particular school, move within a district,

or leave the school district and/or the teaching

profession at large. Thus, this type of information

alone cannot assist in identifying avoidable vs.

unavoidable teacher turnover.

Surveys may provide insight into potential causes of

retention, mobility, or turnover and, if administered

to all teachers, can also provide information on

teachers’ mobility patterns.x A primary benefit of

teacher surveys is that they can be relatively

inexpensive to administer to a large group of

teachers, if not all, and they can provide some

insight in teachers’ mobility decisions. Teacher

surveys could be administered annually and include

items that capture teachers’ working conditions, job

satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover

intentions, and, if applicable, reasons for turnover.xi

These surveys can take two general forms: climate

or satisfaction surveys that may indicate problems

with factors like compensation and working

conditions, or exit surveys, which are administered

to teachers leaving and ask teachers to identify

reasons for their turnover decisions. (Specific

examples of possible survey questions will be

provided in the next brief.)

Information gleaned from the surveys can assist in

identifying avoidable vs. unavoidable teacher

turnover by identifying teacher perceptions that

may be precursors of turnover intentions and

employee motivations for turnover. In addition,

surveys can help identify organizational

characteristics that are associated with teacher

retention and mobility. Teacher turnover that may

be avoidable and mitigated from an organizational

perspective would be associated with factors such

as compensation structures for teachers; the level

of administrative support; the degree of teacher

autonomy, teacher group cohesion, and the


degree of strife within the organization (Hom &

Griffeth, 1995; Ingersoll & May, 2010; Ingersoll &

Perda, 2010; Price, 1977). Unless a teacher had

knowledge of impending forces requiring job

changes, identifying unavoidable teacher turnover

may require a follow-up survey to determine the

exact reasons why a teacher left the school district

or exited the profession. Some unavoidable

determinants of teacher turnover include change

of residence, health, pregnancy leave, time to raise

children, and retirement. As previously discussed,

some of these determinants may be mitigated by

policies and may not be considered entirely

“unavoidable.”

Additionally, for school districts to monitor and

plan for future teacher turnover, a measure that

captures teachers’ turnover intentions is highly

recommended. The most significant predicator of

someone leaving an organization is, somewhat

unsurprisingly, their intention to leave, typically

referred to as their turnover intentions (Griffeth,

Hom, & Gaertner, 2000; Hom & Griffeth, 1995;

Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; Price & Muller, 1986; Tett

& Meyer, 1993). This measure can be something as

simple as asking on a survey how strongly

someone agrees or disagrees with the following

statement: “I intend to look for a new job in the

next year.” Or, several questions may be used and

combined to assess one’s turnover intentions, for

example questions regarding thoughts of quitting,

attachment to the teaching profession, intent to

remain, thoughts of transferring, and withdrawal

behaviors. (Examples of these questions will be

provided in the next brief.) These data obviously

must be collected independently and anonymously

and treated confidentially to ensure accurate

responses from teachers.

Surveys provide some insight into teachers’

perceptions of their working conditions and

potentially their mobility decisions, but they do

not offer as rich and in-depth information that may

be gleamed from interviews or focus groups. These

methods can provide further diagnostic

information that may not be readily obtained in a

questionnaire. For example, focus groups may

provide information on the reasons their

colleagues may be exiting, on why teachers stay

with a particular school and/or district, and why

teachers may leave the school and/or school

district. One of the most commonly used processes

to determine the causes of turnover is an exit

interview. This type of interview is conducted just

before or after an employee leaves an

organization. However, these interviews are

notoriously unreliable, so steps need to be taken

to ensure their accuracy.xii

To potentially identify and track functional and

dysfunctional teacher turnover, personnel need to

combine a combination of methods and data

sources. As previously mentioned, the most

straightforward option is to combine teacher

effectiveness measures with teacher turnover

data. This process may entail merging teacher

characteristics, observation, evaluation, or value-

added data with turnover data. Though teacher

evaluation or value-added measures are not

perfectly reliable at an individual level, they can

provide a good estimate of whether an individual

instance of teacher turnover is functional or

dysfunctional and, in the aggregate, can provide

good estimates of functional and dysfunctional

turnover rates.

To fully account for the functionality and

dysfunctionality of teacher turnover at the school

level, in addition to assessing the changes in the

composition of the teacher workforce, personnel

should also assess potential disruptive

organizational influences. Beyond aggregate

changes in the effectiveness of the workforce,

teacher turnover may have a broader influence on

the school and its performance. These disruptive

organizational influences indicate that teachers


who stay in their respective schools are also

influenced by teacher turnover. One way to assess

the disruptive effects of teacher turnover at the

school level is to conduct a complex value-added

analysis to detect and measure the extent of the

disturbances (e.g., Ronfeldt et al., 2013). Another

technique to examine potential disruptive effects

would be to survey and interview school personnel

who remain in the school to examine the ways and

extent to which teacher turnover may affect them.

For example, stayers may be expected to mentor

new teachers and carry more of the instructional

load and may have less access to resources for

professional development (Guin, 2004; Shields et

al., 2001). Likewise, teacher turnover may

negatively influence the development and

maintenance of social resources (Hanselman,

Grigg, Bruch, & Gamoran, 2011). With the

increased focus on using teacher collaboration,

such as with professional learning communities

(PLCs), as a tool to improve instruction, disruptive

influences stemming from teacher turnover may

be widespread. Merely assessing changes in the

overall quality of those teachers coming and going

ignores these disruptive forces.

Next Steps: Diagnosing Causes of Teacher Retention, Mobility, and Turnover

Once personnel track teacher turnover and

compare it to goals, the next step is to diagnose

potential causes of undesirable turnover. A variety

of frameworks, methods, and tools are needed to

thoroughly and accurately analyze the determinants

of teacher retention, mobility, and turnover so that

appropriate solutions can be matched to particular

causes and needs. However, appropriately tracking

teachers by the various typologies is a beginning

step toward matching appropriate solution sets to

teacher mobility and turnover. Employee and

teacher turnover research provides information on

the many factors associated with teacher turnover

and pinpoints many possible explanations for

teachers’ staying, moving, or leaving the profession.

However, until teacher turnover is examined within

a specific context, it cannot be said which

explanations, and to what extent, may explain

teacher turnover. These frameworks will be

discussed in the following brief: Diagnosing Causes

of Teacher Retention, Mobility, and Turnover.


This table provides a list of teacher, school, and district characteristics and factors that can be tracked over

time.

Table A-1. Elements to consider for tracking teacher retention/turnover

Characteristics and factors Examples/measures Rationale

Teacher level Track to determine if, and if so, to what extent, individual- level characteristics and factors are associated with teacher retention and turnover

Demographics Age, race/ethnicity, gender To monitor changes in the diversity of the workforce

Pre-service experiences Type of teacher preparation program (TPP) attended

To assess potential differences in teachers’ retention from different TPPs

Qualifications Certification type, additional certifications (e.g., National Board Certification)

To assess differences in teachers’ retention by types of qualifications

Experience levels Teaching experience within the profession, district, and school

To determine whether beginning or more experienced teachers are leaving

Ability and/or performance levels

Teacher evaluation ratings, teacher observation ratings, student growth measures

To gauge the extent that high and/or low performers are staying, moving, or leaving

Psychological factors Job satisfaction, organizational commitment, job embeddedness, and turnover intentions

To predict teacher retention and turnover and identify potential solution strategies

School level Track to determine if, and if so, to what extent, teacher retention and turnover between schools is associated with variation in these factors

School-level demographics In addition to the district demographic characteristics mentioned above: grade ranges, locale

To monitor potential inequities in teacher retention and turnover across schools by school demographics

School climate Climate surveys, student discipline To assess the influence of school climate on teacher retention and turnover

Performance levels Achievement scores on standardized assessments

To evaluate influence of students’ performance levels on teacher retention and turnover

School leadership/ administrative support

Leadership surveys, principal evaluation ratings

To consider the influence of school leadership on teacher turnover and retention

Appendix A

Elements to Consider for Tracking Teacher Retention


Table A-1. Elements to consider for tracking teacher retention/turnover (continued)

Characteristics and factors Examples/measures Rationale

District level

Track to determine if, and if so, to what extent, changes in these factors in the district over time may be associated with teacher retention and turnover

Demographic characteristics

Enrollment and enrollment change, student poverty level, percentage of minority students, percentage of bilingual students

To account for the extent that changes in student enrollment levels over time drive staffing needs and may influence teacher turnover

To assess how changes in demographics over time may be associated with teacher retention and/or turnover

Compensation policies Overall compensation levels, stipends for hard-to-staff schools

To determine to what extent changes in salary levels may influence teacher retention or turnover

In-service policies Induction programs, peer assistance and review

To evaluate whether in-service policies are influencing teacher retention and turnover

Context factors Track to determine if, and if so, to what extent, teacher retention and turnover is associated with changes in the external environment

Economic opportunity/ perceived alternative employment opportunities

Unemployment rates

To account for the fact that teachers’ decision to stay or leave is influenced by other employment opportunities (a high rate of teacher retention is not necessarily a sign of good working conditions, during periods of high unemployment)

Federal or state policies No Child Left Behind, teacher evaluation state statutes

To account for federal and state policies that may be influencing teacher retention and turnover


References

Abelson, M. (1987). Examination of avoidable and unavoidable turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 382–86.

Abelson, M., & Baysinger, B. (1984). Optimal and dysfunctional turnover: Toward an organizational level model. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 331–342.

Borman, G., & Dowling, M. (2008). Teacher attrition and retention: A meta-analytic and narrative review of research. American Educational Research Association, 78(3), 367–409.

Clotfelter, C., Ladd, H., & Vigdor, J. (Fall, 2006). Teacher-student matching and the assessment of teacher effectiveness. Journal of Human Resources, 41(4), 778–820.

Clotfelter, C., Ladd, H., & Vigdor, J. (2005). Who teaches whom? Race and the distribution of novice teachers. Economics of Education Review, 24(4), 377–392.Elfers, A., & Plecki, M. (2006). Examining teacher retention and mobility in small and rural districts in Washington state. Seattle, WA: University of Washington.

Feng, L. (2010). Hire today, gone tomorrow: New teacher classroom assignments and teacher mobility. Education Finance and Policy, 5, 278–316.

Finster, M. (2013). Teachers’ job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover intentions, and actual turnover: A secondary analysis using an integrative structural equation modeling approach. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/1773/23621

Glebbeek, A., & Bax, E. (2004). Is high employee turnover really harmful? An empirical test using company records. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 277–286.

Goldhaber, D., & Theobald, R. (2013). Managing the teacher workforce in austere times: The determinants and implications of teacher layoffs. Education Finance and Policy, 8(4), 494–527. doi:10.1162/EDFP_a_00111.

Goldhaber, D., Gross, B., & Player, D. (2007). Are public schools really losing their best teachers? Washington DC: National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Educational Research Urban Institute.

Griffeth, R., Hom, P., & Gaertner S. (2000). A meta-analysis of antecedents and correlates of employee turnover: Update, moderator tests, and research implications for the millennium. Journal of Management, 26, 463–488.

Guin, K. (2004). Chronic teacher turnover in urban elementary schools. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(42), 1–25.

Hanselman, P., Grigg, J., Bruch, S., & Gamoran, A. (2011). The consequences of principal and teacher turnover for school social resources (Working paper). Retrieved from http://ssc.wisc.edu/~sbruch/pdf/Hanselman.et.al.2011. social.resources.pdf

Hanushek, E. (2009). Teacher deselection. In D. Goldhaber & J. Hannaway (Eds.), Creating a new teaching profession (165–180). Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press.

Hanushek, E., & Rivkin, S. (2010). Generalizations about using value-added measures of teacher quality. American Economic Review: Papers and Proceedings, 100, 267–271.

Hirsch, E., Emerick, S., Church, K., & Fuller, E. (2007). Teacher working conditions are student learning conditions: A report on the 2006 North Carolina Teacher Working Conditions. Hillsborough, NC: The Center for Teaching Quality.

Hom, P., & Griffeth, R. (1995). Employee turnover. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western College of Publishing.

Ingersoll, R. (2001). Teacher turnover and teacher shortages: An organizational analysis. American Education Research Journal, 38, 499–534.

Ingersoll, R., & May, H. (2011). Recruitment, retention and the minority teacher shortage. CPRE Research Report #RR-69. Philadelphia, PA: The Consortium for Policy Research in Education.

Ingersoll, R., & May, H. (2010). The magnitude, destinations, and determinants of mathematics and science teacher turnover. Philadelphia, PA: The Consortium for Policy Research in Education.

Ingersoll, R., & Perda, D. (2010). How high is teacher turnover and is it a problem? Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education, University of Pennsylvania.

Ingersoll, R., & Smith, T. (2003). The wrong solution to the teacher shortage. Educational Leadership, 60, 30–33.

http://hdl.handle.net/1773/23621

http://ssc.wisc.edu/~sbruch/pdf/Hanselman.et.al.2011.%20social.resources.pdf


Kaiser, A. (2011). Beginning teacher attrition and mobility: Results from the first through third waves of the 2007–08 Beginning Teacher Longitudinal Study (NCES 2011-318). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch.

Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2002). Teacher sorting and the plight of urban schools: A descriptive analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(1), 38–62.

Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates, and consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 171–194.

Marvel, J., Lyter, D. M., Peltola, P. P., Strizek, G. A., & Morton, B.A. (2007). Teacher attrition and mobility: Results from the 2004-05 Teacher Follow Up Survey. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

Meier, K., & Hicklin, A., (2008). Employee turnover and organizational performance: Testing a hypothesis from classical public administration. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4) 573–590.

Milanowski, A., & Odden, A. (2007). A new approach to the cost of teacher turnover. Seattle, WA: Center on Reinventing Public Education.

Mobley, W. (1982). Employee turnover: Causes, consequences and control. Reading, MT: Addison-Wesley.

Phillips, J., & Connell, A. (2003). Managing employee retention: A strategic accountability approach. Burlington, MA: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.

Plecki, M., Elfers, A., & Knapp, S. (2006). An examination of longitudinal attrition, retention, and mobility rates of beginning teachers in Washington state. Seattle, WA: University of Washington.

Plecki, M., Elfers, A., Loeb, H., Zahir, A., & Knapp, M. (2005). Teacher retention and mobility: A look inside and across districts and schools in Washington state. Seattle, WA: University of Washington.

Price, J. (1989). The impact of turnover on the organization. Work and Occupations, 16, 461–473.Price, J. (1977). The study of turnover. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press.

Price, J., & Mueller, C. (1986). Absenteeism and turnover of hospital employees. Greenwich, Conn: JAI Press.

Rivkin, S. G., Hanushek, E. A., & Kain, J. F. (2005). Teachers, schools, and academic achievement. Econometrica, 73, 417–458.

Rockoff, J. (2004). The impact of individual teachers on student achievement: Evidence from panel data. American Economic Review 94, 247–252.

Ronfeldt, M., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2013). How teacher turnover harms student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 50(1), 4–36. doi: 10.3102/0002831212463813.

Shields, P. M., Humphrey, D. C., Wechsler, M. E., Riehl, L. M., Tiffany-Morales, J., Woodworth, K., Young, V. M., & Price, T. (2001). The status of the teaching profession 2001. Santa Cruz, CA: The Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning.

Tett, R. P., & Meyer, J. P. (1993). Job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover intention, and turnover: Path analyses based on meta-analytic findings. Personnel Psychology, 46, 259–293.

The New Teacher Project (2011). The case against quality-blind teacher layoffs: Why layoff policies that ignore teacher quality need to end now. Brooklyn: author.

The New Teacher Project (2012).The irreplaceables: Understanding the real retention crisis in America’s urban schools. Brooklyn: author.

Villegas, A., & Irvine, J. (2010). Diversifying the teaching force: An examination of major arguments. Urban Review, 42, 175–192. doi 10.1007/s11256-010-0150-1.

http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch


End Notes

i This concept of dysfunctional is conceptualized at the individual level, that is, the quality of the individual leaving; however, high levels of turnover at the school level may also be considered dysfunctional regardless of the quality of the individuals due to disruptive influences.

ii Because teacher turnover varies from year to year, and the teacher retention targets are judgmental, action should not necessarily be based solely on a small one-year deviation from the goals. Band levels allow some small one-year deviation from the goal before taking action.

iii There are circumstances and conditions under which schools may demonstrate more extreme fluctuations in their teacher turnover. For example, shorter time frames may depict extreme variation at one point in time. The task in these circumstances is to identify whether the phenomenon is an isolated case or a trend. These issues are discussed later in this brief.

iv There are circumstances and conditions under which schools may demonstrate more extreme fluctuations in their teacher turnover. For example, shorter time frames may depict extreme variation at one point in time. The task in these circumstances is to identify whether the phenomenon is an isolated case or a trend. These issues are discussed later in this brief.

v Data collection for the first wave of the BTLS was part of the 2007–08 SASS.

vi The point here is that even with “accurate” scores, it is possible to have very different distributions of scores across these measures; it is not about the validity and reliability of these measures.

vii This analysis is based on aggregated data; it does not follow that each school district needs to eliminate its bottom 5 percent. While the bottom 5 percent in some school districts may be low performers, in other districts the bottom 5 percent may be effective, compared to the average teacher in the local labor market.

viii As opposed to adjusting targets for district or school demographic characteristics, the point here is that these factors may have a large proportionate effect on teacher retention rates so that wide variations in rates may be expected. The solution is to follow the occurrences and determine whether they are trends or just single instances of wide variation.

ix Frameworks, methods, and tools for diagnosing teacher turnover will be addressed in the next brief.

x Logistically, if a survey alone is used to track teacher mobility, it will need to include a follow-up survey.

xi Reasons for turnover would be appropriate for a follow-up survey.

xii These issues will be further discussed in a subsequent brief.

identifying, monitoring, and benchmarking teacher

Documents